# Mafia: Baker Street \[Game in progress\] **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [February 7, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-baker-street-game-in-progress/680752 "2014-02-07T14:39:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 746
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-baker-street-game-in-progress/680752/746 "2014-02-27T19:47:55Z")
> [@DaphneBlack](#): > > Gotta say, **Pizza** , I am _not_ seeing it. You are super-tunnelling on **Inner** and there is just not that much there. True. I’ll drop the poker face for a moment. Half of my bloviating is to indicate certainty where none exists, or indicate a vote I never intend to remove until it causes death. Why I do that: It certainly got IS to react to me for several posts. Those reactions are important (for me) to read. They read naturally. Specifically the post about the **denouement** : > [@](#): > > I must say, it’s rather exciting being the focus of so many of your posts. It’ll be so sad when the denouement fail to live up to your hype. It’s almost the exact same thing _I_ posted to Silver Jan [**when she was considering voting me early on Day One.**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17102509&postcount=153) They are phrased differently, but they come from the same brain wave. That and other similar posts were what I was hunting for. Consequently, I like IS’ responses today. The tone of my posts pressuring him sound ridiculously overinflated because they _are_. I’m not too worried about it. It’s not as if it’s bothering him. He likes it. It’s all part of the game. Anyone who plays this game is liable to be the subject of long-winded and aggressive and wrong accusations. Half the fun is knowing they’re wrong and watching them go off on a tangent and place bets you know they’ll lose, so it’s not a big deal. You’re not the one with egg on your face afterward, they are. I’ll risk putting egg on my face. I’ll also risk pressuring someone and turning my opinion around based on their response so quickly it gives people whiplash. That’s what I did with Pleonast, unapologetically. I know the sudden reversals don’t jibe with how others play. There’s too much to gain in being right and not letting go, and not enough to personally lose if you guess wrong but see it through to the end. However, if I see stuff that makes me think someone is townie I don’t want to follow through and lynch them. I’d rather look like a flake than continue pressing the wrong button. > [@](#): > > I personally have no read on **Inner** right now. Would love to hear more of his thoughts. Why did you think **Lightfoot** would be cleared by **Chronos** ’ death? You wanted to hear IS’ thoughts, so I’ll abstain. > [@](#): > > Also, **sinjin** ’s “quick” acceptance of me was not so quick, she had believed me on Day One. That doesn’t seem suspicious to me. I don’t think Chronos was the only scum who voted for me. Particularly after it became obvious that I wasn’t going to agree with a damned thing he said, challenged his votes and assumptions, dismissed his voting analysis tool completely out of hand, then called his tu quoque post to be the single top indicator of scum I’ve seen in all the years. That has to have gotten the attention of someone. I don’t think Chronos went it alone trying to get me. It’s not all about pizza, as sinjin has stated repeatedly, but that’s the scum GF I’ve been more or less browbeating. You don’t trash almost everything he’s doing and not have his mates notice it. By the end of such a round, there was going to be a couple scum votes on me. Am I completely confident there are more scum there? No. It’s an assumption which applies to generic scum, not specifically Sinjin or IS. I think it’s better than 50 percent likely, but it’s not overwhelming. I do want to examine all my voters one by one, as a starting point. Others can start from a different place and see where they end up. Meanwhile, I haven’t stopped looking at the others. Gnarly’s reaction to you was one of those which caught my attention. > [@](#): > > I do agree that **gnarly** ’s reaction to me has been wonky all-the-live-long. I gather that he always gets squirrelly when voted. It’s hard for me to read gnarly. I can’t recall a time that I’ve ever really \*gotten \*him. If it’s based on this, then it may be a first. > [@](#): > > I understand everyone wanted me to spill the deets after I voted Chronos right away. I should have waited a bit. I kind of think that townies might have weighed the possibility that I, as Holmes, had a good reason for waiting… and it seems some did. Others became agitated. > > I also think scums wanted me to spill so they could have a clearer idea of what my powers were. They’re going to look to whatever you say to inform them of their next move. The slower that information comes, the less they have to work with. Which is why prompting you to fully spill could be the dreaded moment where a scumbag reveals what they’re really thinking, with poor timing at that. > [@](#): > > I do have a result – not on **gnarly**. I will not be revealing it at this time. Obv. what I told you yesterday is now moot. The reveal should come as late into the day as possible. If you can scrape the edge of the round without going over, that virtually guarantees the person in question survives into the next day. * * * \*\*On preview \*\* Lightfoot: > [@](#): > > What is your reasoning here? > > the person with the clue that relates to yours is likely a ‘clue’ yours is an if/then which doesn’t seem to me to be a fair trade With Moriarty dead, my clue makes me half a mason. It’s a fact, established by the rules, only townies are given false clues. Scum can \*tell \*us false clues, but only townies were actually \*given \*them. I’m in possession of a clue that says someone else’s clue is false. If they exist in the game at all, then my clue can only be false if theirs is true. If \*my \*clue is false, then they possess real data which can be useful to us to know, because it’s real. But if said person’s clue is false, then they are known to be innocent by rule. In either case, we learn something true. A known innocent or a known true clue. We cannot \*both \*be in possession of false clues. If his clue is false that makes mine true. The odds are quite likely his information is useful, especially since I am probably in possession of a false clue indicating that his information is not true. If I’m designing the game I put false clues indicating useful clues are false, to make them less useful to the town. It’s an assumption, but the alternative is, he’s got useless but true information, and I’m half a mason. I can \*also \*live with that. (But not for long :D) --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-baker-street-game-in-progress/680752)._